Message-ID: <cf0bc9aabf8a47705310b7dbf8f341aae4b1849c.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Question on execution plan and suitable index
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: yudhi s <learnerdatabase99@gmail.com>
Cc: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>, Adrian Klaver	
 <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>, Nisarg Patel <er.nisarg@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-general	 <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 12:52:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAEzWdqdo14MgxC_XO+ah_7r-cyEJwfenSAyve1tAeLaE+nwLZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAEzWdqeGj9FcubNXegJ8PGTnXNahUhgc6T+yNFW7O12EkKR9yA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <818d0359d8b629a80b55b2e068dab958fc8e0a2a.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAEzWdqfxtEzxO10Rnr0Yw+tPJMtCuu2c2e1mr6bEzuYL1U1BvA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2fa62200cf92dc03dff20f8a42e45bb30fc40f35.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAEzWdqdo14MgxC_XO+ah_7r-cyEJwfenSAyve1tAeLaE+nwLZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cf0bc9aabf8a47705310b7dbf8f341aae4b1849c.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2026-02-16 at 16:09 +0530, yudhi s wrote:
> I have updated the plan below. While trying to replace actual binds and
> the objects with sample=C2=A0names some lines got missed initially=C2=A0i=
t seems.
>=20
> https://gist.github.com/databasetech0073/f564ac23ee35d1f0413980fe4d00efa9=
=C2=A0

Thanks.

Does the filter on "due_date" eliminate many rows in "orders"?  If yes,
and an index on that column would actually perform better (which you
could test with enable_seqscan =3D off), perhaps your "random_page_cost"
parameter is set too high.

Where you can certainly make a difference is the repeated scan on
"event_audit_log".  An index on (request_id, event_comment_text, created_at=
)
should speed up that part.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe